At least 75 top Republicans
have signed a legal brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court this
week, arguing that gay marriage is a constitutional right, according to The New York Times, which got a copy of the document.The court is preparing to take on the subject of gay marriage late next
month, when it will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of
California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, and the Defense of
Marriage Act. It is expected to render a decision in early summer.The signers of the document are mostly out-of-office Republicans or former top officials, including former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman,
former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), former Massachusetts Govs. William
Weld and Jane Swift, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.Read More:

This is potentially a big deal. It gives
cover to a swing justice or two who may be sitting on the fence about
marriage equality.It is telling how many of these politicians
are no longer in office and how many of them opposed gay marriage when
they were in a positions of power and had to worry about elections.
It speaks volumes to the fear Republicans have of the extremists who
wield so much influence in their party and how easily they cave to it.Just think of your spouse, if you currently
now have one. Like many people, I know what my spouse is about and I
celebrate it everyday. She tells me what she would never tell her
family. We are a team.

I'm thankful that regardless of trusts and wills,
the law defaults to my oversight of her wishes and needs should
anything happen to her. I will honor "her" wishes, no matter what. I'm
sure many of you know this feeling.

Currently gay couples, in most states, do not have this basic right.
National recognition of the validity of gay marriage will codify this
right, in a way that wills, trusts, or contracts cannot compare.``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````Instead of worrying about the deficit or the unemployment lets worry about Gay marriage instead cause that is more important than millions out of work.`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````Republicans doing their best to save their
political lives at the risk of losing the 30 million Christians which
will of course eliminate the Republican Party from contention. Either
way the Republicans can blame themselves for destroying the Republican
Party.Who cares except some tiny minority that
already have every right listed under the bill of rights where does it
end ? This move is to legalize sodomy which even animals don't practice
aren't humans suppose to be superior to animals.``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````If you click through to the source article on NYT,
you see a better description of the importance of this document. As
noted above, it is an brief laying out an argument in support, but based
on more conservative viewpoints. The intent is to help persuade more
conservative leaning justices.

This is no small matter. The
Supreme Court, by its nature, does often look at prevailing social
opinion about topics such as this. We are in the middle of a shift in
thinking similar to the 1950s and 1960s. Support for marriage equality
is growing rapidly, and it is quite strong among voters under 30. The
Supreme Court is going to consider this, even if some of the justices
won't admit to it. That the support is coming from multiple political
perspectives is going to reinforce that.

One reason that the
justices will consider these things is that part of the legal wrangling
focuses on the level of scrutiny that is used for determining
constitutionality. Often, laws must make distinctions based on certain
groups, such as legal age to drive a car.
Some distinctions are more suspect than others, and thus the test of
constitutionality varies. This variation in the test is referred to as
the level of scrutiny.When a law makes distinctions based on a
protected class, such as race, then typically the government must show
that the law serves a compelling (very important or crucial) purpose.
This is called strict scrutiny. Certain other classifications, such as
gender, are subject to what is called intermediate scrutiny, which
requires that the law serve an important purpose (but not necessarily a
crucial one). Other classifications require only that the law make some
rational sense, even if it isn't proven to be accurate.

This last
level, put simply, amounts to "there are some distinctions that make
sense, and laws need to be allowed to make these distinctions". For
example, age based laws are very common. Historically, orientation has
typically fallen in this last level. In other words, until recently,
courts have viewed orientation as an unprotected class. Part of what is
at issue is whether that level of scrutiny should be raised.

Showing
that orientation is not merely choice and also society as a whole views
this as a matter of equality could go a long way to helping someone
like Roberts, or possibly even an Alito, to shift their views.

Monday, February 25, 2013

>>>>>>>>>YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!!!!!!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have an appointment with one of these GOP Congressmen on the
JUDICIARY COMMITTE on March 5th at 11:30. I NEED APPOINTMENTS with the
OTHER 22 GOP CONGRESSMEN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on the same day
(March 5th) or a day before or after. PLEASE, KEEP CALLING THEIR
OFFICES.

➔ ➔ ➔ PLEASE CALL THE OTHER 22 GOP CONGRESSMEN ON THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on list below til there is a SECURE
APPOINTMENT!!!!!! or EMAIL YOUR STATE CONGRESSMAN LISTED!!
>>Specifically, we are contacting you regarding Dr. Orly Taitz’s
case in question which is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen,
California Secretary of State that was to be before the Supreme Court on
February 15, 2013 and the decision was to be made February 19, 2013 but
did not make it. Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5
out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not
forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.

There is
evidence of employees of the Supreme Court of the United States hiding
from justices of the Supreme Court pleadings and documents submitted by
plaintiffs and attorneys, removing cases from the electronic docket,
evidence of bogus conferences of justices being reported to the public,
when no such conferences took place and the justices being clueless
about the very existence of the cases, evidence of criminal complicity
of the employees of the Supreme Court and treason in the most serious
cases dealing with national security.

Remind them that we have
40,000 signatures on our petition and all the supporting evidence of the
>>most egregious National security breach in the history of this
nation.

Please tell them to make an appointment with Dr. Orly
Taitz on/before/after March 5th (except 11:30 March 5th). Have them
contact Dr. Orly Taitz at:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), - EMAIL: Kathryn.Rexrode@mail.house.gov
- JUDICIARY MAINLINE (202) 225-5431 (leave a message there and they
will ALSO TRANSFER YOU to the comment line, and leave a message there!)

Leftist Liberals are planning to disarm the masses !!There is no
Equality without the Equalizer.

It's about
Equality.You won't see
President Obama or his gun-grabbing cohorts admitting it, but the simple fact is
that disarmament in America has historically been racially motivated.
Yes, you read
that right. Gun Control has racist
roots.According to the
George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal Vol. 2 (1991): 67 titled Gun
Control & Racism:

The history
of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and
oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other
"unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers.
Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive
action against these groups. The first
gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks,
whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their
servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass
restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from
exercising their rights of citizenship. Another old
American prejudice supported such gun control efforts, then as it does now: the
idea that poor people, and especially the black poor, are not to be
trusted with firearms.

It is
unconscionable that in 2013, so-called progressives are quietly permitting laws
to stand that disproportionately diminish the rights of minorities. The late Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. was blocked by segregationists when he tried to get his
concealed carry permit, because they knew equal strength to defend oneself leads
to societal equality. Sadly, gun control advocates today are de facto fighting
for that same inequality.And as you can
see in our short video, African-Americans
and other minorities are still the primary victims of gun control legislation
in America.

Anti-gun Mayors
Michael Bloomberg and Rahm Emanual preside over the two of the largest cities in
America. Both Chicago & New York's populations have a majority of minorities
AND both cities have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.DO
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND RAHM EMANUEL WANT TO DISARM AFRICAN AMERICANS AND
HISPANICS?

Bloomberg and
Emanuel are closet racist with a socialist agenda to empower the Oligarchs who cannot control an armed populace.

The gun control they are pushing has
real life racial consequences.“It doesn't
matter where you live, whether in the city, suburbs or a rural area,” said SAF
founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “all law abiding citizens
should be able to defend themselves and their families.”The Equal Gun
Rights video spot, website and campaign (produced in collaboration with Larry
Ward of Political Media – The Gun Appreciation Day Founder) highlight the
disproportionate impact of gun control laws on African-Americans, Latinos and
other minorities, and show how it leaves large groups unable to defend
themselves, their families, or their businesses. The video shows
citizens from different parts of the country commenting on their local gun laws,
providing a vivid contrast between people who live in regions with laws that
enable citizens to exercise their rights, and those who reside in areas with
restrictive gun laws which typically have larger minority populations, including
Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City.

Self defense is more than
a Civil Right…it is a Human Right.

The simple fact
is that gun control has historically disarmed far more African Americans
than any other demographic group.

The
Vernon Jarrett syndicated column of Nov. 6, 1979, that appeared in the
St. Petersburg Evening Independent. It originally appeared in the
Chicago Tribune on Nov. 2. This image was pieced together from screen
shots of the St. Petersburg Independent page available for viewing in
the Google Newspaper Archive. Jarrett was the father-in-law of Valerie
Jarrett, President Obama's closest adviser.

Why
would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling
relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they
would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We
all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state
and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance
blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in
the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why
would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the
same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for
revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to
quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the
most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated
against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the
population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under
adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute
the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you
most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just
like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist
Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born
“Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the
vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons. Interestingly,
in context with the fact that this article was written by her
father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over
Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his,
another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally
interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this
Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively
pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally
interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered
seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

​Lastly,
it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is
Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the
entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran.
The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.)
Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes
it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly
makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard​​

Excerpted from Daily Interlake:
Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have
tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to
inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting
present-day quandaries.Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that
seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign
issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at
least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power
movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it
has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will
allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also
take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column
so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening
Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who
at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose
work was syndicated nationally. (1) So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to
light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very
interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich
Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and
minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco
lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald
Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and
had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since
becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special
aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and
that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be
announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in
newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package
funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10
years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks,
Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to
somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any
other word of it.Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s
particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for
several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger
ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black
colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also
the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack
Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for
president and one of the leading black politicians in the country —
Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news
show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising
money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.
He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told
me about Obama.” (2)

This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was
quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile
old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story
personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this
elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and
in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New
York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he
thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed
that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter
where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to
Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to
go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of
him?”Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of
him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a
genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would
treat him kindly.”Until now, there really has been no context within which to
understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account
other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of
the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney,
businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column
that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give
“financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he
might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal —
have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of
that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled
in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is
certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than
Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie
Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White
House.It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends
and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist
and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years
later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley
Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is
surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of
young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for
his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college
education as a member of the highly international student body of
Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was
touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince
Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided
releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no
evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is
likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as
leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his
previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African
American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also
helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with
black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of
course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of
the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the
Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid
al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason,
al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about
his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority
colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college
career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at
that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in
Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more
likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people
in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour
told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to
Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please
write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.)
… and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements,
had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and
become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for
anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at
Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going
to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)What possible significance could all this have? We may never know,
but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund
black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As
Jarrett wrote:“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few
extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black
community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money
angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an
occurrence.” (1)He was, of course, right.

As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably
individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to
continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for
the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests
in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of
how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably
more than academic interest.

► Obama arming DHS to the teeth: 450 Million rounds of hollow-point
bullets and another 175 million .223 caliber rifle ammo massive
ammunition purchase:http://bit.ly/Hvu7Ik
(UPDATE: Now up to 2 BILLION rounds... for perspective: we only shot
5.5 million rounds/month during the Iraq war. 2 Billion = 24 year "Iraq
War". Update story: http://bit.ly/Vrc5gf).

► DHS Buys millions of dollars worth of target practice posters with
pictures of armed civilians (including: pregnant women, elderly,
children etc.) from a company named "Law Enforcement Training, Inc.":http://bit.ly/13asFp8http://bit.ly/W91hAC

I don't care if you're the most die-hard Obama sycophant. You cannot
deny the disturbing pattern that's emerging here. Take the Obama
blinders off and wake up to the real agenda that's behind all those
fancy speeches. If not for your own sake, for your children, and your
children's children.

If you're an Obama voter, Obama doesn't
care about you. He used you to get in power in order enact his sinister
agenda, just like many other Marxist demagogues before him throughout
recent history (look at Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia etc.,
almost exactly the same pattern, and exactly the same outcome). There's
no shame in admitting you were duped, as long as you wake up before it's
too late. This isn't about republicans vs democrats, liberals vs
conservatives, or left vs right. This is about ALL our futures! Obama is
toiling hard to destabilize and CRASH the US economy, so that from its
ashes he can "fundamentally transform" the United States of America just
like he always said he was planning to do (only you thought it meant
something else). Since coming into office, Obama has more than DOUBLED
Bush's deficits after promising to cut them in half by the end of his
1st term; and with no slowdown in sight. No one is THAT incompetent
unless they're seeking to intentionally derail the US economy. Pay
attention to what this man DOES not what he SAYS. This will affect all
of us, regardless of political affiliation. We have to stop the
bickering and start focusing on our common enemy and our common
interests. Will you keep being in denial about all of this until it's
too late? Or are you willing to consider the possibility and start
thinking for yourself instead of having someone else tell you what to
believe?

STARVE THE LEFTY MEDIA ON CABLE....According to Gallup, 39 percent of the country identifies themselves as conservative and
37 percent as moderate, only 23 percent see themselves as liberal. And
yet out of all the networks, only FOX News brings a conservative
perspective into the conversation. On the other hand, CNN, MSNBC,
Current TV, and others are on the spectrum of left of center
to unabashed progressive. And Now Current TV is Al-Jazeera America.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton have put out promo ads for this despicable Channel.39+37=76 Thats 76% or so that will not want Al Jazeera and MSNBC on the air... an we are all still paying for it!!Each month when customers pay their cable or satellite bill, a
portion goes to each of those networks. That means that people who don’t
agree with the progressive values of hosts on MSNBC, Current TV, and
Al-Jazeera are having a portion of their money being used to fund those
networks. However, those same customers are left with only one option
that comes close to representing their own values.“Here’s what I think. If you write a check that goes to support
networks that overwhelming represent a viewpoint you don’t agree with,
the least your cable or satellite operator can do is listen to you,”

DiClemente was arguing that the bundled approach to cable TV–whereby
subscribers get dozens or even hundreds of channels for one big fee, no
matter how many networks they actually watch–wasn’t going anywhere for
quite some time. If ever.But if you’re the kind of person who thinks we’re headed for an a la carte model in which programmers compete directly for consumer dollars, you can use this as fodder for your argument. Because you can see just how much you’re paying for stuff you don’t want.Take a look above... you are subsidizing LEFTY CHANNELS....But this gives you a very good idea of where the money goes–to a lot of channels you likely never, ever, look at.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.And you’ll also be upset once you realize that the broadcast
networks–GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, Disney’s (DIS) ABC and
CBS (CBS)–are being added and you may only want Fox.Hence, last winter’s Fox vs. Time Warner Cable (TWC) standoff, and
the Disney vs. Cablevision (CVC) fight that ended in time for the Oscars
last night.As I’ve said before, I think that many cable viewers are probably okay with most of the bundle–or at least unwilling to foot the bill for real a la carte pricing. But maybe if you waved this list in front of them, they might rethink that.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

In his first term President Obama was criticized for trash-talking the 1-percenters while enjoying the aristocracy of Martha’s Vineyard and the nation’s most exclusive golf courses.
Mr. Obama never quite squared his accusations that “millionaires and billionaires” had not paid their fair share with his own obvious enjoyment of the perks of “corporate jet owners,” “fat cat bankers” and Las Vegas junketeers.
Now, that paradox has continued right off the bat in the second term. In the State of the Union, Mr. Obama once more went after “the few,” and “the wealthiest and the most powerful,” whom he blasted as the “well-off and the well-connected” and the “billionaires with high-powered accountants.”
Like clockwork, the president then jetted to West Palm Beach, Fla., for yet another golfing vacation at one of the nation’s priciest courses, replete with lessons from a $1,000-per-hour golf pro to improve the presidential putting.
The rest of the first family jetted off on their own skiing vacation to elite Aspen, Colo., where nobody accepts that at some point they’ve already “made enough money.” Meanwhile, below the stratosphere, unemployment rose to 7.9 percent for January — the 49th consecutive month it has been 7.8 percent or higher. The economy shrank in the last quarter of 2012, gas is back to almost $4 a gallon, and the government continues to borrow almost $4 billion a day.

Today, lots of liberal grandees attack the rich and yet do their best to act and live just like them.
Take financial speculator and leftist billionaire, George Soros, who is back in the news. Mr. Soros is able to fund several progressive think tanks that go after the 1 percent because he is the most successful financial buccaneer of the age — notorious as “the man who broke the Bank of England” and was convicted of insider trading in France. The Soros family investment firm’s most recent speculating coup was betting against the Japanese yen. That made Mr. Soros $1.2 billion in just three months — enough capitalist lucre to keep funding Media Matters and other attack-dog progressive groups for years to come.Facebook co-founder and Obama campaign organizer Chris Hughes just bought The New Republic and has rebranded the magazine as an unapologetic progressive megaphone.
How odd that hip Facebook just confessed that it paid no federal or California state income taxes for 2012 on its $1.1 billion in pretax profits on its U.S. operations alone. Odder still, Facebook will probably receive a federal tax refund of about $429 million. Apparently Facebook’s “well-connected” found some “high-powered accountants” to write off their stock options as a business expense.
Perhaps Treasury Secretary-designate Jack Lew should have a look at Facebook’s tax contortions. He should be familiar with the big-money paper trail, given that Mr. Lew himself took a nearly $1 million bonus from Citigroup after it had received billions of dollars in federal funds to cover its gargantuan losses.Mr. Lew, like his tax-dodging predecessor, Timothy F. Geithner, has a propensity for doing just the opposite of what the president used to preach against. Mr. Obama, remember, warned Wall Streeters not to take bonuses after their failing companies received federal money.
Mr. Obama also derided dubious offshore Cayman Islands tax shelters. Yet he apparently forgot to tell that to Mr. Lew, who invested in a fund registered to the same Potemkin Cayman Islands building that Mr. Obama had used as a campaign prop to bash the 1-percenters.
One of the nation’s best-known class warriors is former U.S. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Chicago, who for years has damned the wealthy for their ill-gotten gains. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges after he and his wife were accused of siphoning off $750,000 from their campaign accounts to pay for an assortment of 1-percenter extravagances like a $43,000 Rolex watch.
Today’s leftists like the high life as much as their demonized conservative rivals. The more they damn the bad “millionaires and billionaires,” apparently the less guilt they feel about living it up in Palm Beach or Aspen, paying no taxes, offshoring their profits or wearing Rolex watches.
The vast growth of the federal government has splashed so much big money around New York and Washington that even muckraking progressives can’t resist. Loud redistributionist rhetoric offers the necessary vaccination shot that makes privileged leftists immune from any criticism — or guilt — over indulging in tax avoidance, billion-dollar speculation or aristocratic tastes.

George Orwell long ago noticed the same thing, when in “Animal Farm” the pig elite loudly damned reactionary humans even as they sought to copy them by walking on two legs.Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His new book, “The Savior Generals,” will appear this spring from Bloomsbury Press.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The picture above is my Take on the Issue Whats yours ???

NEWS BULLETIN:

Wisc. University Stands By Campaign To Teach Diversity By Writing ‘Unfair’ On White Students’ Faces

The
University of Wisconsin Duluth-Superior is standing by a controversial
campaign launched in 2012 to increase public awareness about racial
favoritism by writing “unfair” on students’ faces along with a variety
of grievances supposedly shared by minorities against Caucasians. The
university released a statement last week defending the project and
saying that the campaign is prepare to enter its second phase.
“The creative materials for the campaign’s initial phase, launched in
January 2012, were designed to be very provocative,” reads a statement released by the University.
“UW-Superior understood and expressed serious concern about the nature
of these materials. However, rather than abandon a well-intentioned
effort, UW-Superior chose to continue working with the other community
partners to help refocus the campaign’s future direction.”
The statement makes it clear that this initiative was not concocted
by the University alone. It was launched as part of a coalition effort
conceived by a group of community sponsors.
The statement accuses the media of misleading reports that suggest
the university would teach the values embodied in the “unfair campaign”
to students. They insist that UW Duluth-Superior does not teach “unfair”
in the classroom.
Finally, the University announced that “unfair” is entering a second
phase. “Racism: Ignore It And It Won’t Go Away,” was launched summer of
2012,” the statement reads. “At a recent series of community meetings,
residents of the community have already begun to chart its future
course.”
Not all the original partners are standing by the “unfair campaign.” Last year, the University of Minnesota ceased their support for the awareness effort calling it “divisive” and “alienating.”

OBAMA IS FREAKING KENYAN SCAREMONGER.. SEQUESTRATION WILL NOT LAY OFF FIRST RESPONDERS AND TEACHERS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS.

UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE BULLSHIT FROM THE KENYAN... ALL THE DOOM AND GLOOM IS BULLSHIT PATRIOTS...

Fact: The sequester cuts domestic spending by only 2.5 cents on the dollar.

AS KRAUTHAMMER SIAD... This is the ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan
calendar. In fact, it looks worse than the Mayan disaster. Look, this,
as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour by allowing a transfer of
funds. It’s incredibly soluble, easily soluble. And the president is
the one who ought to propose it. He won’t, of course, because he is
looking for a fight and not a solution. But secondly, look at this in
perspective.

In terms of the gross domestic product of our
economy this is .03, it’s a third of 1% of our domestic economy. On the
domestic side, overall, it’s 2.5 cents on the dollar. And overall, on
the non-defense side, it’s a penny-and-a-half on the dollar of
reductions. Here we are with a debt of $16 trillion and the argument
today is if we cut a penny-and-a-half on non-defense spending in one
year it’s the end of the world. If so, we are hopelessly in debt and
we’re going to end up like Greece.

As I say....OBAMA had all those first
responder standing behind as useful idiot no brainer "props"!! Does any
of those fucking assholes in their pressed uniforms that the state and
local budgets pay for FIRST RESPONDERS ?? The Federal Budget
Sequestration has nothing to do with their budget cuts. OK ????????????
FREAKING USELESS STUPID SHITS... Posing behind the NEGRO as props...!

HEY ASSHOLES ON THE LEFT..

Firefighters are not paid with Federal Dollars School Teachers are not Paid with Federal Dollars Police are not paid with federal Dollars Firefighters are not paid with Federal Dollars

Just fat cat WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS ARE !! LIKE THE TSA AND THE OTHER
SHITS AT ALL THE OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL NOT GET A RAISE.... AND
THAT IS GOOD !!

BESIDES 2013 Cuts Are $44 Billion, Not $85 Billion in CUTS ON A 3.8 TRILLION BUDGET FROM WHICH WE ARE ALREADY BORROWING 46 Cents of every dollar to prop up the OBAMA/US HOUSE OF CARDS

courtesy John B. TaylorEconomist
John B. Taylor charts what sequestration will look like when it
comes to federal spending levels. The short version: A lot like
federal spending levels absent sequestration, which is widely
reported as reducing outlays in FY2013 by about
$85 billion or so.The first thing to note is that the $85 billion figure
that gets bandied about overstates this year's cuts due to
sequestration by about $40 billion. According
to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its February 2013
report on the budget outlook, "Discretionary outlays
will drop by $35 billion and mandatory spending
will be reduced by $9 billion this year as a
direct result of those procedures
[sequestration]; additional reductions in outlays
attributable to the cuts in 2013 funding will
occur in later years."You got that? When President Obama scaremongers about
national parks closing and TSA lines getting longer - and when
Republicans bitch and moan about the military having to
set up bake sales to buy bombers - they are already misstating
basic facts. The sequester will slice $44 billion off this year's
budget, not $85 billion.CBO figures that total spending in FY2013 will come
to
around $3.55 trillion (see table 1-1), or roughly
the same as FY2012, when it came to $3.53 trillion. In 2014,
assuming the sequester happens, CBO figures total spending will be
$3.6 trillion before it jacks up considerably to $3.8 trillion in
2015 and then up to over $4 trillion in 2016. As Taylor's chart
(above, right) shows, this isn't that very much different at all
than what would happen absent sequestration. Taylor favors keeping
the sequester but add the sensible proviso that the president and
the Congress should allow all affected agencies to the flexibility
"to adjust their budgets within the overall sequester totals."
That blunts the criticism that the sequestration is itself too
blunt an instrument.courtesy John B. TaylorYou'll note in Taylor's chart a line marked
"pro-growth reform," which is substantially lower than the the CBO
baseline or spending "without sequester." Taylor explains that's
the amount of spending that would happen if the government pursuied
a "fiscal consolidation strategy" that reduced the debt-to-GDP
ratio in a way that would return spending as a share of the economy
to pre-crisis levels.
In work done with
John Cogan, Volker Wieland, Tobias Cwik, Taylor simulates the
effects of cutting spending on the larger economy and finds
that

The positive short run economic effects occur even in the
model with price and wage rigidities for several reasons including
that the lower spending (as a share of GDP) can reduce expected tax
rates and raise permanent after-tax income compared to what would
be expected under current policy. This stimulates consumption. The
gradual nature of the government spending reduction, which allows
time for private spending to adjust, avoids the negative aggregate
demand effects that traditional Keynesian models
emphasize.

How does cutting government spending spur consumption and
growth? After all, if we count most government spending in GDP,
significant cuts to government spending will by definition shrink
the economy, right? Taylor notes the incremental but believable
cuts in spending signal to businesses and consumers that massive
tax hikes or truly disruptive reductions in spending are less
likely to happen. As a result, economic activity proceeds. An added
bonus is that misallocated resources - more likely via government
spending than by private actors - get freed up as well.That gap on the right-hand side of the chart (Figure 1,
above right) between "Baseline" and "Fiscal Consolidation Strategy"
is essentially another way of marking the huge price exacted on
future economic growth by high levels of government spending and
debt. As Veronique de Rugy and I have noted in various articles
(like
this one and
this one), research by Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and
Kenneth Rogoff argues that maintaining levels of gross debt greater
than 90 percent of GDP for five years at a time reduces future
economic growth by as much as 1 percentage point a year for 20-plus
years. We've been in such a "debt overhang" situation since 2008
and the cumulative effect over the coming years will likely be
substantial. In the chart to the right, the blue line represents
expected economic growth when gross debt is lower than 90 percent
of GDP and the red line shows reduced growth due to debt
overhang.Who exactly is up for having 24 percent less stuff in, say,
2036? Start building it into your retirement plans, because that's
where we're heading if spending and debt patterns keep going the
way they're headed. As the CBO illustrates it, there's really no
scenario under current trends in which revenue catches up to
spending.

SO LETS HAVE A REVOLUTION TO CLEAN UP THE COUNTRY OF THESE FEAR MONGERING ANTI AMERICAN PIECES OF CRAP!!!

ABOUT THIS BLOG

I AM A FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE
CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WINGER UNDERGROUND... IN EXILE IN AMERICA !
I AM AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE:
Ferocious = (fə-rō'shəs) “Marked by unrelenting intensity; to the extreme”
Conservative = (kən-sûr'və-tĭz'əm) “A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions and distrust of government activism”
My page is a place for Unrelenting Ferocious Activist Conservatives across our country to gather and discuss and plan our next moves. I am tired of sitting around and playing “nice” while the Progressive Liberals have spent the last 50 years attacking and denigrating our values and our beliefs while our side sits around and tries real hard to be accommodating and “Nice”! (Political Correctness!) NO MORE!!
AS AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVES. I WILL ATTACK BACK!